Creation Evidences

One question, please...

Posted by MagFlare on September 10, 1998 at 22:33:58:

Here's a simple one for all the creationists out there. What evidence is there for creation? Not against evolution; FOR Biblical creation.

First Response

Posted by Helen on September 10, 1998 at 23:37:13:

1. The information in the simplest bacteria's genome.

2. The preciseness of the design of everything we know about, from the atom to a molecule of water to the genome to the interrelationshps among various plants and animals.

3. Biotic statis. Mutations vary around a mean, or a norm -- they do not take off into left field creating whole new things. In hundreds of thousands of generations of bacteria they are.......still bacteria!

-- as a side bit here, I have a question for you. If thousands and thousands of generations of bacteria yield only bacteria, how many generations would it have taken for a fish to become an amphibian?

4. And, yes, the uniqueness of man himself. To anticipate your challenge here, I am think of a sense of moral accountability, a sense of planning for the future, the ability to communicate abstract ideas via abstract symbols -- I think you know what I am talking about.

Response to Helen

Posted by MagFlare on September 10, 1998 at 23:48:56:

Okay, I only have responses to a couple of these (in all honesty, I'm no microbiologist)...

2. Preciseness is impossible to identify. If a water molecule were sloppily put together, how would we know? All organisms 'grow up' around each other, therefore, changes spawn new changes whch forces the organisms to cope.

3. What is this mysterious 'mean' or 'norm'? We seem to be back to the definition of 'type' here...

4. What is the proof that, say, dolphins don't have moral accountability and the capacity to plan ahead? Something along those lines has been witnessed. May I direct you to Pierre Boulle's classic novel 'The Planet of the Apes'? (On second thought, better not.)

Response to MagFlare

Posted by Helen on September 11, 1998 at 00:52:49:

Okay, I only have responses to a couple of these (in all honesty, I'm no microbiologist)...

I'm not either! If you can live with that, so can I...:-)

2. Preciseness is impossible to identify. If a water molecule were sloppily put together, how would we know? All organisms 'grow up' around each other, therefore, changes spawn new changes whch forces the organisms to cope.

....or die. Usually die. But about the water molecule -- the fact that the two hydrogen are both on one "side" of the oxygen means that the water molecule has polarity: one side is positive and one is negative. This is what makes it the "universal solvent." If the atomic charges were even slightly different, if oxygen and hydrogen bonded in an even slightly different way, life as we know it would be impossible. This is not to say, if evolution were true, that some other kind of life could not have somehow appeared somewhere, but that is all guessing games. What we can deal with is what we have here. And there is a precision to the atomic structure, to molecular attractions, to DNA -- all of which are required to permit life as we know it. This kind of precision is very hard to accept as accidental -- one does not see precision by accident (at least not in my house!).

3. What is this mysterious 'mean' or 'norm'? We seem to be back to the definition of 'type' here...

I don't think we have to deal with "type" or "kind" when we are talking about this. It is something that is readily seen in nature and in the lab. Mutations can go backwards (undo themselves) as well as forwards, and do. They do not tend to build on each other, but rather tend to break down and possibly kill the organism when the mutational load gets too high. At the very least, they break down and simply don't go any further. A good example is the numerous experiments with fruit flies. First of all, the mutations can add or subtract to what is already there and do. Big wings, little wings; big eyes, little eyes; and that sort of thing. The wings can change sizes, but only to a point. On the small side, they can disappear, but on the large side there is a limit to what we have seen. Same with the eyes. They might be eliminated, but at no time does the fruit fly turn into one or two giant eyes with a little-bitty body attached somewhere. There is variation around some kind of central point. We see the same thing in populations. Dogs have been bred intensively and extensively. They can be hairless or have long hair, but there seems to be a limit as to just how long that hair can be induced to grow. Dogs can range from toy size to great Dane and Shepherd, etc., but there seems to be a limit on both ends as to just how far the size business can go. That is the sort of thing I was talking about.

We know from inbreeding of, for example, German shepherds, that a mutational load builds and produces a high incidence of hip dysplasia. In breeding, bloodlines in domesticated animals are watched closely in order to avoid mutational load, as it is considered quite detrimental to the animals. So not only do mutations seem to be limited in what they can do to an organism or population, but we have seen from our own experience that too many mutations in one genetic line leads to disaster, and breeders try very hard to avoid that.

4. What is the proof that, say, dolphins don't have moral accountability and the capacity to plan ahead? Something along those lines has been witnessed. May I direct you to Pierre Boulle's classic novel 'The Planet of the Apes'? (On second thought, better not.)

Classic or not (and I remember the movie when it first came out!), science fiction is, in the long run, very little science and a whole lot of fiction. I know that we have been delighted to find the high levels of intelligence that we have found in some types of animals. I think perhaps we have a tendency to anthropomorphize when we find it, though. That is just my opinion.....

Regardng something like the capacity to plan ahead, I am not thinking in terms of a couple of minutes or even hours. I am thinking in terms of generations. For instance, I plan on selling the home I have now in the spring and buying a smaller home on more acreage. Why? Not because I love all the upkeep that acreage can involve, but because I want a place for my children to come should a possible economic collapse bankrupt one of them and their family. However, I can also weigh that possibility against other possibilities regarding the future welfare of my extending family. This is something uniquely human. No animal can do this.

Response to Helen

Posted by scott on September 11, 1998 at 17:10:44:

However, I can also weigh that possibility against other possibilities

regarding the future welfare of my extending family. This is something

uniquely human. No animal can do this.

**** How do you know this? Sounds like anthropocentrism to me.

Second Response

Posted by Mockingbird1 on September 10, 1998 at 23:53:48:

PK: That would be the universe. Are you really glad you asked?

Response to Mockingbird1

Posted by Stephen Charchuk on September 11, 1998 at 09:36:05:

And how is it evidence for creationism?

Response to Stephen Charchuk

Posted by Mockingbird1 on September 11, 1998 at 10:48:00:

PK: It is tangible, it is the result which creationism would predict: creation.

PK: I am only answering the question. I don't insist the evolutionist all give up on realizing that they live in a material world.

Response to Mockingbird1

Posted by Deb on September 11, 1998 at 12:51:08:

So are oranges. So is dogdoody. Pretty much a nonanswer, PK.

Response to Mockingbird1

Posted by Stephen Charchuk on September 11, 1998 at 23:22:54:

What Deb said. You are giving a non-answer.

I could use the same "answer" which you state to "prove" that the universe is the result of a Big Blue Banana and you can't prove me wrong, even if you state that bananas can't do this. You only have experience with little yellow bananas. ;-)

You can't prove a negative.

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison